Article Sidebar
Published:
Oct 11, 2023DOI:
10.4314/ahs.v23i3.76Keywords:
Article Details
While African Health Sciences has been freely accessible online there have been questions on whether it is Open Access or not. We wish to clearly state that indeed African Health Sciences is Open Access. There are key issues regarding Open Access needing clarification for avoidance of doubt:
- 1. Henceforth, papers in African Health Sciences will be published under the CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution License) 4.0 International. See details on https://creativecomons.org/)
- 2. The copyright owners or the authors grant the 3rd party (perpetually and in advance) the right to disseminate, reproduce, or use the research papers in part or in full, format/medium as long as:
- No substantive errors are introduced in the process
- Attribution of authorship and correct citation details are given
- The referencing details are not changed.
Should the papers be reproduced in part, this must be clearly stated.
- 3. The papers will be freely and universally accessible online in an easily readable format such as XML in at least one widely recognized open access repository such as PUBMED CENTRAL.
B. ABRIDGED LICENCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUTHORS AND African Health Sciences
I submitted my manuscript to African Health Sciences and would like to affirm that:
1.0 I am authorized by my co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
2.0 I guarantee, on behalf of self and co-authors:
- That the paper is original, and has not been published in any other peer-reviewed journal; nor is it under consideration by other journal (s). It does not infringe existing copyright or any other person’s rights
- That we are/I am the sole author(s) of the paper and with authority to enter into this agreement. My granting rights to African Health Sciences is not in breach of any other obligation
- That the paper contains nothing unlawful, or libelous. Nor anything that would constitute a breach of contract, confidence or commitment given to secrecy, if published
- That I/we have taken care to ensure the integrity of the article.
3.0 I and all co-authors, agree that the paper, if accepted for publication, shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. (see https://creativecommons.org/)
Main Article Content
Risk factors analysis of endoscopy and TIPS in the treatment of secondary esophagogastric varicose bleeding with cirrhosis
Abstract
Objective: To analyse the risk factors of secondary hemorrhage and survival rate in cirrhotic patients with esophagogastric variceal
rupture and to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic hemostasis and TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic
shunt).
Methods: A total of 120 patients with secondary bleeding after endoscopic treatment of esophagogastric varicose bleeding with
cirrhosis in our hospital during the past 3 years were retrospectively analysed. There were 65 males and 55 females, ranging in
age from 49 to 74 years old, with an average of (59.5 ± 8.4) years old. The etiology, degree of varicose veins, bleeding location,
hemostasis method, Infection, ascites, portal vein thrombosis or cancer thrombus, albumin, platelets, prothrombin activity, Child
Pugh (Child-Pugh classification is a diagnostic criterion for liver reserve function) grade were compared in each group. The risk
factors of treatment failure and analyse the survival time was analysed.
Results: There were statistically significant differences in varicosis degree, infection, ascites, portal vein thrombosis or cancer
thrombus, child Pugh grade, albumin and prothrombin activity between the failed Endoscopy group and the successful hemostasis
group (P< 0.05). There were statistically significant differences in child Pugh grade, albumin and prothrombin activity between
the failed TIPS treatment group and successful hemostasis group (P< 0.05). There was no significant difference in 1-year
survival between the endoscopy group and the TIPS group.
Conclusion: Severe varicose veins, infection, ascites, portal vein thrombosis or cancer thrombus, child pugh classification, albumin,
and prothrombin activity were the major risk factors for failed secondary endoscopic therapy, child Pugh classification,
albumin and prothrombin activity were the main risk factors for failure TIPS treatment. There is no significant difference in
long-term survival between the two methods.
Keywords: Liver cirrhosis; esophagogastric varicose bleeding; Endoscopy; TIPS.
